LSAT Explanation PT 37, S4, Q15: Editorial: The threat of harsh punishment

LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the editorial's argument? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Necessary Assumption question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is B. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's analyze the argument in the passage. The argument's structure is as follows:

Premise 1: Harsh punishment usually decreases guilt or shame for a transgression.

Premise 2: Guilt or shame for committing a transgression reduces a person's tendency to commit transgressions.

Conclusion: Increasing the severity of legal penalties for transgressions may amplify people's tendency to ignore the welfare of others.

To better understand this argument, let's use a simple example. Imagine a child who steals a cookie from a jar. If the child's parents punish the child severely, the child may feel less guilt or shame for stealing the cookie. If the child feels less guilt or shame, they may be more likely to steal cookies in the future. By increasing the severity of the punishment, the parents may inadvertently cause the child to care less about the welfare of others (e.g., not sharing cookies with their siblings).

An "Evaluate" question for this argument could be: "Do transgressions always involve ignoring the welfare of others?"

Now, let's discuss the answer choices for this Necessary Assumption question. The correct answer is B.

A) Legal penalties do not determine the morality of an action.

This answer choice is not necessary for the argument to be valid. The argument is about how harsh punishment affects guilt or shame and the tendency to commit transgressions, not about the morality of actions.

B) At least some actions that involve ignoring the welfare of others are transgressions.

This is the correct answer. This assumption is needed to bridge the gap between the premises and the conclusion. If some actions that ignore the welfare of others are transgressions, then increasing the severity of legal penalties for transgressions could indeed amplify people's tendency to ignore the welfare of others.

C) People who are concerned about threats to their own well-being tend to be less concerned about the welfare of others.

This answer choice is not necessary for the argument to be valid. The argument does not discuss the relationship between concern for one's own well-being and concern for the welfare of others.

D) The threat of harsh punishment deters people from committing transgressions only if this threat is at least sometimes carried out.

This answer choice is not necessary for the argument to be valid. The argument is about the effect of harsh punishment on guilt or shame and the tendency to commit transgressions, not about whether the threat of punishment is carried out.

E) Everyone has at least some tendency to feel guilt or shame for committing extremely severe transgressions.

This answer choice is too strong to be necessary for the argument to be valid. The argument does not require that everyone feels guilt or shame for extremely severe transgressions. The argument is about the general tendency of guilt or shame to reduce transgressions and how harsh punishment affects this tendency.